alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018399EN.01004601.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/46

---

Action brought on 6 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (WANDA FILMS)

(Case T-533/18)

(2018/C 399/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) ans Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WANDA FILMS — Application for registration No 13 912 829

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2018 in Case R 401/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings); |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

| — | override the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

override the contested decision;

| — | issue a decision that admits the registration of the trade mark defended by the applicant with the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

issue a decision that admits the registration of the trade mark defended by the applicant with the present application.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 31, 1999 AND
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
JANUARY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,255
<SECURITIES>                                     4,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (959)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,800
<PP&E>                                           6,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,029)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,871
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,671)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,428
<SALES>                                         21,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,937
<CGS>                                            3,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (160)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
#### Reinwald O’Connor & Playdon v. Snyder

23380

04/17/2001

Affirmed
20760

#### Friends of Red Road v. County of Hawai'i

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of Periodic Financial Report **

**by      the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                        |                                   |                                   |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Date: December                14, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Dennis                Calvert |
|                                        | Dennis                Calvert          |
|                                        | Chief                Executive Officer |

|                                        |                                           |                                   |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Date: December                14, 2006 | By:                                  | /s/ Dennis                Calvert |
|                                        | Dennis                Calvert                  |
|                                        | Interim                Chief Financial Officer |

----
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 890 

Expressing support for the Arctic Council and commemorating the Arctic 

Council 20th anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Ms. PINGREE, 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. MEEKS, and Ms. 

BROWNLEY of California) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the Arctic Council and 

commemorating the Arctic Council 20th anniversary. 

Whereas, on September 19, 1996, the Arctic Council was established with the signing of the Ottawa Declaration; 

Whereas the Arctic Council is an intergovernmental body that 

promotes international cooperation on Arctic issues; 

Whereas the United States along with Canada, Denmark, 

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden comprise 

the Arctic Council member states; 

Whereas the Arctic Council offers a platform in the international arena for indigenous communities to ensure they 

have a voice about what happens in their region; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 890 IH 

Whereas the Arctic Council helps the Arctic remain a stable 

zone of peaceful international interaction; 

Whereas the Arctic Council serves to ensure safe, sustainable 

tourism and commercial maritime traffic in the region; 

Whereas the Arctic Council works to protect the Arctic marine environment and address the impacts of climate 

change; 

Whereas the Arctic Council provides a collaborative forum for 

scientific research on topics including ocean acidification, 

sea floor mapping, and future Arctic Ocean navigability; 

and 

Whereas the United States current chairmanship of the Arctic Council offers an opportunity to promote and implement our policy objectives: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the Arctic Council’s work and remains committed to en3 suring that the United States fulfills its responsibilities 

4 as an Arctic nation and asserts leadership on issues affect5 ing the Arctic. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020320EN.01002202.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CT v VINI GmbH

(Case C-805/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/47)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---
May 20, 2015

Mr. Mark Dyer 222 Shadow Ridge Dr Graham, NC 27253

Dear Mr. Mark Dyer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 25th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0751), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF HEIN AND ASSOCIATESLLP**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-152282,333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567 and 333-65528) on Form S-8 ofEmrise Corporation of our report dated April 15, 2009 relating to ouraudit of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Emrise Corporation for the year ended December 31,2009.

 

 
| /s/  Hein & Associates LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Irvine,  California                 |
| April 15,  2010                |

 

----
#### Hallmark Productions, Inc., *v.*Department of Education, Division of Film Censorship.

(No. 32164

Decided June 7, 1950.)

*Mr. W. E. Minshall,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Duffy,*attorney general, *Mr. William C. Bryant*and *Miss Gladys E. Davis,*for defendant.

By the Court.

The case presents to this court the *596single question whether the order of the defendant is unreasonable or unlawful. This court has viewed the film and is of the opinion that the order of the defendant rejecting it “on account of being harmful” is not unreasonable or unlawful. The prayer of the petition is denied.

*Judgment for defendant.*

Weygandt, C.. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11874

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00065-MMH-JBT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDIK ASADORIAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 26, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Edik Asadorian in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

Case: 16-11874 Date Filed: 05/26/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Asadorian’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11874 Date Filed: 05/26/2017 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2018381EN.01003001.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/30

---

Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

(Case T-527/18)

(2018/C 381/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnium, SA (Manresa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tec.nicum’ — European Union trade mark No 13 626 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2427/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based; |
| --- | --- |

—

No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based;

| — | Incorrect identification of the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect identification of the relevant public;

| — | No similarity between the services; |
| --- | --- |

—

No similarity between the services;

| — | No similarity between the opposing marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

No similarity between the opposing marks;

| — | No likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

No likelihood of confusion.

---
# C_2010221EN.01000202.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-211/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Hospital care needed during a temporary stay in another Member State - Lack of right to assistance from the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

2010/C 221/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, Agent and M. Hoskins, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Non-reimbursement of hospital costs incurred abroad — Exceptional circumstances

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2018455EN.01003101.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/31

---

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — E.J. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)

(Case T-628/18)

(2018/C 455/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.J. Papadopoulos S.A. (Moschato-Tavros, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.–V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Europastry, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Application for registration No 13 125 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 493/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Europastry, SA, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Europastry, SA, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
# C_2009113EN.01001202.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-289/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11(1)(c) - External emergency plans - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 113/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to draw up within the period prescribed an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to draw up within the period prescribed an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS A. WILKINSON, III, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-6861
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD M. CONK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-68) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 19982 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Thomas Zerkin, GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia; Paula Marie Junghans, MARTIN, JUNGHANS, SNYDER & BERNSTEIN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court’s order denyingtheir supplemental motion for a new trial based on their allegations of newly discovered evidence and the Government’s violation of the disclosure requirements of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wilkinson , No. CR-95-68 (E.D. Va. June 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED